GOP filibustering everything

[Cali Coug]

A while back Tex indicated the GOP only protested to the use of the filibuster for judicial nominees. I pointed out the total falsity of that statement, and Tex stopped responding. Now the GOP is literally blocking every single appointee (judicial or otherwise) to any office. Why? So Sen. Shelby can force the Democrats to give a military contract to a foreign manufacturer who has contributed a lot of money to Shelby in the past.

I assume that even if Tex and other GOPers don't believe the factual statement that the GOP protested to the use of the filibuster to pass bills in the past, they still believe the filibuster shouldn't be used on judicial nominees. If so, where's their outrage?

[MikeWaters]

I think what Shelby is doing, from what I have heard, is ridiculous.

[Tex]

I agree, and I've heard a few other conservatives say the same thing. If one accepts the premise, then of course one could say the hypocrisy cuts both ways. Dems were referring to the filibuster as a sacred and honored tactic back in the day. That fact doesn't seem to bother Cali much.

But it's worth noting I've not heard anyone besides him call it a filibuster. It doesn't much matter to me, but since Cali is Nit Picker in Chief, I thought the distinction worth noting if he was going to accuse the R's of hypocrisy.

This is the definition of a hold in senate.gov:

hold - An informal practice by which a Senator informs his or her floor leader that he or she does not wish a particular bill or other measure to reach the floor for consideration. The Majority Leader need not follow the Senator's wishes, but is on notice that the opposing Senator may filibuster any motion to proceed to consider the measure.

So this is really not equivalent to what the Democrats were doing to Estrada, Owens, etc. back during the Bush admin. Those were actual votes against an actual cloture motion, in which all senators went officially on record. This, on the other hand, is just a threat.

If Dems are so confident in wanting to make Shelby's silly parliamentary move an issue, why not call for a cloture vote?

[MikeWaters]

My understanding is that forcing votes on all these matters makes the senate extremely inefficient. If they have to hold 100 cloture votes, that's a lot of time and effort, and is not practical.

It's time to toss out all the bastards in Washington. They are entirely too comfortable.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I agree, and I've heard a few other conservatives say the same thing. If one accepts the premise, then of course one could say the hypocrisy cuts both ways. Dems were referring to the filibuster as a sacred and honored tactic back in the day. That fact doesn't seem to bother Cali much.

But it's worth noting I've not heard anyone besides him call it a filibuster. It doesn't much matter to me, but since Cali is Nit Picker in Chief, I thought the distinction worth noting if he was going to accuse the R's of hypocrisy.

This is the definition of a hold in senate.gov:



So this is really not equivalent to what the Democrats were doing to Estrada, Owens, etc. back during the Bush admin. Those were actual votes against an actual cloture motion, in which all senators went officially on record. This, on the other hand, is just a threat.

If Dems are so confident in wanting to make Shelby's silly parliamentary move an issue, why not call for a cloture vote?

Let me explain how this works. The Senate largely operates on unanimous consent. A "hold" is an objection to unanimous consent. That then requires a full vote on the matter. In practice, once a bill comes to the floor after a hold, it means the bill is being filibustered. Cloture must then be filed to break the filibuster. Then the motion for cloture must ripen (takes 2 days). You then have the cloture vote, but after the cloture vote there are 30 hours of scheduled debate on the original question. At this point, the Senate is then prepared to start actual debate on the bill. That bill itself is also subject to filibuster, as are all amendments offered on the bill. Each of those filibusters must then go through the same cloture requirement, as well as the actual bill. On top of that, there can be motions which can also be filibustered and then broken by cloture. So for just one bill/confirmation, for example, you can easily take an entire week of the Senate's time, if not longer. It isn't practical for the Senate to stop all work for one week to confirm one nominee or to pass one bill, so effectively a "hold" is a filibuster and ends the process. As long as we are being precise.

Many Democrats, such as myself, don't have a problem with the concept of the filibuster. Conceptually, it is designed to ensure the majority doesn't steamroll the minority. When used appropriately, it has that effect. When used inappropriately (like now), it has the effect of the minority steamrolling the majority which, I would think, everyone can agree is foolish.

Now you have a situation where Republicans are filibustering quite literally everything. It isn't as if they are doing it to advance debate or their "ideas" (if they ever offer one) either. They are doing it merely to be obstructionists. That's it. They have put political interests ahead of the nation's (by a long shot). How do we know they aren't actually opposed to the underlying bill or confirmation? Because even when they lose on the filibuster (i.e., the Dems get cloture and plod through to a final vote), Republicans often then vote to pass whatever it is they were filibustering. There were two confirmations last week that Republicans had been filibustering for almost a year. Cloture was finally obtained on the nomination itself (and all motions offered) and the Senate then unanimously confirmed the nominees.

The filibuster can be used to advance debate. It can also be abused. When used to advance debate, I favor it. When used as a tool of pure obstruction, I oppose it. Republicans are quite clearly using it as a tool of pure obstruction (because they have no good ideas to advance).

It isn't as if Shelby is on an island in being an obstructionist. That is the Republican agenda right now, pure and simple. Here's a chart of the use of the filibuster for each Congress since the 86th:

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

As long as we are being precise.

Ironically, what we learn from that lengthy explanation is how you're willing to call just about anything a filibuster, whether it really is or not.

In any case, to the original topic: while I personally disagree with Shelby's tactic, it has been fun to see Democrat's showcasing their own hypocrisy. I've read a few liberal blogs squealing like stuck pigs about how abusive Senate Republicans are, and it's delightful ... the same blogs that only a few years ago were speaking of the filibuster in hushed tones of reverence. It certainly didn't seem to bother them to be the party of "no ideas" back in 2006.

Have Cali step out of his glass house and start a brand new thread on it is icing on the cake.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Ironically, what we learn from that lengthy explanation is how you're willing to call just about anything a filibuster, whether it really is or not.

In any case, to the original topic: while I personally disagree with Shelby's tactic, it has been fun to see Democrat's showcasing their own hypocrisy. I've read a few liberal blogs squealing like stuck pigs about how abusive Senate Republicans are, and it's delightful ... the same blogs that only a few years ago were speaking of the filibuster in hushed tones of reverence. It certainly didn't seem to bother them to be the party of "no ideas" back in 2006.

Have Cali step out of his glass house and start a brand new thread on it is icing on the cake.

I get the feeling you didn't read any of my post, as the counter to everything you just said was included in that post. If you disagree with my points, fine, but at least discuss them rather than just repeating your premise all over again.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I get the feeling you didn't read any of my post, as the counter to everything you just said was included in that post. If you disagree with my points, fine, but at least discuss them rather than just repeating your premise all over again.

Yes, I did read them. And I responded with exactly what I meant. What's the point in a long response, when you play with definitions to your advantage?

But to humor you ...

You say a hold is "effectively" a filibuster. It may well have the same end-effect, but that doesn't mean a hold is a filibuster. You unwittingly underscored this point with that graph you posted. It was a graph of cloture motions, not holds, no?

You say up until last week Republicans were filibustering two nominations for a year, and that they are "filibustering everything." That's a really odd claim, given that Republicans have only had a potential filibuster-sustaining vote for about 4 days. Unless of course, you're employing your elastic definition of the word again.

And then you whine about all the work it takes to get a cloture vote ... all the hours of debate, blah blah. I knew all that already, and I say: big deal. The Republicans did it time and again for Owen, Rogers, Pryor, etc. Man up, Democrats.

To compare Shelby's little tantrum to the Democrats' collective no-holds-barred obstructionism of '05-'06 is just silly. The two bear no resemblance. Moreover, whining about Republican obstructionism now has to be the most lilly-livered attack I've heard coming from the Left. You guys had 60 votes for a year, and would've had it longer if Kennedy had stayed alive. Your inability to complete major legislation has nothing to do with the Republicans.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Yes, I did read them. And I responded with exactly what I meant. What's the point in a long response, when you play with definitions to your advantage?

But to humor you ...

You say a hold is "effectively" a filibuster. It may well have the same end-effect, but that doesn't mean a hold is a filibuster. You unwittingly underscored this point with that graph you posted. It was a graph of cloture motions, not holds, no?

As I said, it is "effectively" a filibuster. It signals to the majority leader there will be a filibuster and ends all progress on the issue. I don't know why it matters to you if it is really a filibuster or not, it is a guaranteed path to a filibuster so the effect is the same. We are talking about Republicans being obstructionists, and a hold has the exact same effect as a filibuster. The cloture motions graph is helpful because it shows you are incorrect that Democrats aren't pushing back against the filibuster. They are. They are taking the many holds employed by Republicans, then they are filing for cloture on the filibuster following the hold, then they are filing for cloture on all of the subsequent Republican filibusters on that motion as well.

You say up until last week Republicans were filibustering two nominations for a year, and that they are "filibustering everything." That's a really odd claim, given that Republicans have only had a potential filibuster-sustaining vote for about 4 days. Unless of course, you're employing your elastic definition of the word again.

No. Again, I don't think you understand the Senate process very well. There are only so many hours in a day, Tex. And the Senate isn't in session for all of them. To break a single filibuster requires a heavy percentage of the Senate's daily business. They do not have the time available to break every single Republican filibuster. They just don't. A dedicated minority can bring Senate processes to a grinding halt when they want to be obstructionists. That's where Republicans are right now. Yes- Democrats can break filibusters (or could until last week). That's exactly what they have done (as evidenced by the cloture motions table).

And then you whine about all the work it takes to get a cloture vote ... all the hours of debate, blah blah. I knew all that already, and I say: big deal. The Republicans did it time and again for Owen, Rogers, Pryor, etc. Man up, Democrats.

It isn't "whining," Tex. It is simple math. Only so many hours in a day.

To compare Shelby's little tantrum to the Democrats' collective no-holds-barred obstructionism of '05-'06 is just silly. The two bear no resemblance. Moreover, whining about Republican obstructionism now has to be the most lilly-livered attack I've heard coming from the Left. You guys had 60 votes for a year, and would've had it longer if Kennedy had stayed alive. Your inability to complete major legislation has nothing to do with the Republicans.

"No holds barred obstructionism?" I honestly don't see how you get that description out of what Dems did on 2005-2006 but not think Republicans are far worse (a simple statistics review of cloture motions filed should make that perfectly clear). If 2005-2006 represented no holds barred obstructionism to you, you can't possibly be of the mind that Republicans aren't far worse (at least while still being honest).

As for "inability to complete major legislation," I don't think you have been paying attention. The stimulus bill alone makes this Congress one of the most prolific in the history of the nation. Isn't that actually what you have complained about in the past? You really can't have it both ways, you know. At least, while still being honest.

[Archaea]

For you Cali, the Dems are Saints who use filibuster for noble purposes of advancing debate, but the Reps are ruthless scum acting purely in terms of obstructionism. You also state the Reps vote for something once it's gone to vote as evidence that the Reps didn't oppose the underlying bill or person. Well, you ignore the possibility that the Reps might oppose it but need better cover or to allow a vote when nobody's watching.

Secondarily, as the work of the Senate often involves work that I mostly disapprove, I am not that unhappy its work is stalled.

Here is an interesting dilemma for me. On one hand, I recognize the argument, as it is made in first year poli sci, that we elect representatives and try to trust their judgment.

But that's not really true for me. I rarely trust any of them. I usually vote for somebody I detest less than his or her opponent. So I really want everybody back there to do nothing, if they can't do exactly what I wish.

I do not approve of Obama's health care insurance reform, so I'd love for it to come to a screaming halt.

I can't think of a project he's tackling that I like the result. So stop it please!